Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:17 am**

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:11 am Interestingly, Justin uses a reading known in Marcion's gospel and used by "heretics" generally to prove that Jesus introduced for the first time in human history knowledge of the Father (1 Apology 63:3, 13 -- but see Bellinzonl's work on Justin's text -- the Greek text available in earlychristianwritings via Ben Smith seems to be inaccurate here - I can go into more detail if anyone is interested). But Justin at no point indicates any knowledge of a Marcionite gospel so the possibility is open that the reading existed in "the Gospel" (of Hebrews?), singular, more widely known until our canonical works.

Ben's work on Marcion here is based on Roth, so go figure.
Justin uses the phrase Evangellion in Dialogue with Trypho 10:2, even as "so-called gospel" (First Apology 66:3)

Chapter X.—Trypho blames the Christians for this alone—the non-observance of the law.
And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus:— “Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this: have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?”
“This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them. But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festival ...

CHAP. LXVI.—OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us E ukaristia (5) [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6) For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

I'm just ruminating Vinzent's Christi Thora here by the way

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:32 pm**

I have long wondered if the name Marcion might be a clue. As a diminutive form of the name Markon (Mark) and with Luke and Mark having much material in common, might it be possible that proto-Luke (Marcion's Gospel) was the blueprint of our canonical Mark? It's usually assumed that Luke copied Mark but what if some of that material common to both Gospels was already present in Mark as a proto form of both Gospels.

It's certain I think that Mark knew of the letters of Paul, but how if Marcion was the first to introduce them?

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:58 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:17 am
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;

That particular instance to my mind reads very much like a gloss. I don't think Justin anywhere else refers to the Memoirs as Gospels (or have I overlooked a passage?).

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:29 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:17 am Justin uses the phrase Evangellion in Dialogue with Trypho 10:2, even as "so-called gospel" (First Apology 66:3)

“This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them;

Yes, and it is this singular term "Gospel" (Justin is not the only very early source to use the term this way) is what intrigues me. Why the singular?

One often reads that Justin knew a range of gospels and this conclusion is based on his references to scenarios we find in a host of other gospels, canonical and noncanonical. The problem is that Justin's references to those scenes very often vary from what we read in other gospels so significantly and consistently that we have a real problem if we try to imagine Justin reading the gospels we know today.

What I think explains the overlaps better is that Justin knew writings that documented events in Jesus' life that were "midrashically" derived from OT passages and that the creators of our canonical gospels also used that source/those sources known to Justin.

But as for "the Gospel" known to Justin, I wonder if it was something more akin to a "popular philosopher's treatise" describing the advent of the Word/Logos into the world to reveal the Father, that is, a document that was produced from the ranks of Hellenized Jews and proselytes, not far removed from the thinking of Philo. (Forget the Gospel of Mark and the Synoptics -- I can't imagine Justin's "Gospel" being much like those at all.)

Justin introduces the Jesus of this gospel as "Jesus Christ" as if that is his actual name (another clue to the philosophical origin and character of the "Gospel") and equates him with Reason/Logos/Word.

Now that has for some reason suddenly reminded me of Troels Engberg-Pedersen's and others analysis of Paul's letters demonstrating their Stoic structure and methods. Stoicism, we know, was a philosophy that sought some kind of "salvation" through submission to and identification with Reason/Logos -- the same type of thinking Paul calls on Christians to apply to Jesus Christ.

But I'm getting way ahead of myself now.... that's enough.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:44 pm**

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:29 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:17 am Justin uses the phrase Evangellion in Dialogue with Trypho 10:2, even as "so-called gospel" (First Apology 66:3)
“This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them;

Yes, and it is this singular term "Gospel" (Justin is not the only very early source to use the term this way) is what intrigues me. Why the singular?

I have 2 other suggestions which you may find interesting about Justin's Gospel:

1. That it was a single texts, akin to Tatian's (albeit including material not found in the 4 Gospels), with a title attributing it to unnamed apostles.

2. It referred instead to the message of salvation and proper conduct within Justin's belief system, akin to Paul's usage of the term Gospel.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:24 pm**

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:58 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:17 am
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them

That particular instance to my mind reads very much like a gloss. I don't think Justin anywhere else refers to the Memoirs as Gospels (or have I overlooked a passage?)

A digital version of The Apologies of Justin Martyr (To Which is Appended The Epistle to Diognetus) (With an introduction and Notes) by Basil L. Gildersleeve, Ph.D. (Gött.), LL.D., New York, Harper and Brothers, 1877, has Justin's First Apology 33 with

Καὶ ὁ ἀποσταλεὶς* δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν παρθένον κατʼ ἐκεῖνο τοῦ καιροῦ* ἄγγελος θεοῦ εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν* εἰπών

and, aligning with what Martijn posted above in English, First Apology 66 has

*. Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπʼ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν*, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια*, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς

* BUT the notes say

13. ἀπομνημονεύμασιν: See Introduction, xxxv.—ἃ … εὐαγγέλια: Suspected by some of being a gloss. But, as Otto observes, this would [also] involve a gloss in Dial. c. T. cc. 10. 100.a

a 'Dial. cum Trypho' 10 has

Ὑμῶν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ λεγομέηῳ εὐαγγελίῳ παραγγέλματα θαυμαστὰ οὕτως καὶ μεγάλα ἐπίσταμαι εἶναι, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνειν μηδένα δύνασθαι φυλάξαι αὐτά

(aligning with 'Dial 10' in English above)

a and 'Dial. cum Trypho' 100 has

Ὅτι γὰρ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ καλεῖται ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀπέδειξα· καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ εὐλογίᾳ4 καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Ἰούδα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ κεκηρύχθαι ἐν μυστηρίῳ ἀπέδειξα· καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ5 δὲ γέγραπται εἰπὼν, Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ, καὶ οἷς ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ

5 "The reference is to Matt. 11:27" b

b but, if so, one might wonder which direction the 'reference' might have gone

So -

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:58 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:17 am
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them

That particular instance to my mind reads very much like a gloss. I don't think Justin anywhere else refers to the Memoirs as Gospels (or have I overlooked a passage?)

- and -

13. ἀπομνημονεύμασιν: See Introduction, xxxv.—ἃ … εὐαγγέλια: Suspected by some of being a gloss. But, as Otto observes, this would involve a gloss in Dial. c. T. cc. 10. 100.

- earn Neil a gold star highlight

But what about

First Apology 33

Καὶ ὁ ἀποσταλεὶς* δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν παρθένον κατʼ ἐκεῖνο τοῦ καιροῦ* ἄγγελος θεοῦ εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν* εἰπών

[edited: replaced 'gospel' with 'good news']
εὐηγγελίσατο via https://biblehub.com/greek/eue_ngelisato_2097.htm = 'preached [or] proclaimed the good news' as in Ephesians 2:17 and Acts 8:35 (and is among many variations)

Lastly, from -

13. ἀπομνημονεύμασιν: See Introduction, xxxv.—ἃ … εὐαγγέλια: Suspected by some of being a gloss. But, as Otto observes, this would involve a gloss in Dial. c. T. cc. 10. 100.

- we get this ie. from that Introduction' -

Memoirs of the Apostles

The battle over the question whether Justin’s Memoirs of the Apostles are identical with our canonical Gospels has lasted nearly a century. Begun by Stroth in 1777, it is safe to say that the fight is going on at this very moment in the powder-magazine of some theological review. It is the Homeric question of the canon. Eichhorn and Paulus and Gieseler have each had his word to say on the subject, and Credner, whose entrance upon the field marks a recrudescence of the controversy, has gained great reputation by his acute and vigorous discussion of the subject. An English bishop, Marsh, has taken the negative side, an American clergyman, Norton, the affirmative. The number of pages consumed is appalling. Bindemann is content with 128, but Hilgenfeld does not sum up his complex result until he reaches page 304, and Semisch’s book takes up no less than 409 pages. And yet these are only a few of the names that might be cited, only a few of the pages to be studied by those who would master the bearings of the controversy; and the mere statement of the history of the question would take up more space than could be occupied with profit by the introduction to a school-book. Suffice it to say that Justin’s citations from the Memoirs of the Apostles do not tally exactly, save in a few instances, with the parallel passages in our Gospels, and, though the differences are not considerable to the uncritical eye, some theory is demanded to account for the discrepancy; and much stress has been laid on the fact that these divergent texts recur with the same divergences, not only in Justin, but in other writers who are known to have used uncanonical Gospels. Then there are certain statements, certain reports of sayings of our Lord, which do not occur in our Gospels, and these also are made much of or made light of by the debaters according to the side which they have espoused. The extreme positions are occupied by those who deny that Justin made any use of our canonical Gospels, and by those who maintain that Justin made little use of any other. The former either reconstruct for him a lost Gospel, or refer his citations to a number of archetypal or apocryphal Gospels, such as the Gospel according to Peter, the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The latter account for the variations mainly by Justin’s careless quotations from memory—for which curious parallels might be adduced from the popular treatment of our own authorized version—and also by Justin’s use of other recensions of the synoptics. Between the two extremes are those who admit only the subordinate use of one or more of the synoptics in connection with one or more gospels of the Petrine type.

One great objective point in this whole struggle is the date of the Fourth Gospel. If Justin was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, the whole fabric of a great historical school falls to the ground, and we can readily understand why the controversy assumes an almost personal tone when it approaches the subject, and, like all other personal controversies, becomes more or less disingenuous.

Certainly confidence is not lacking to the leaders on either side, and trophies are erected with great intrepidity by conservatives and destructives alike. In such battles no truce is ever made for burying dead arguments, and in this war there is no immediate prospect of a discharge; for while Keim, no mean authority, declares that the long struggle has ended in favor of the conservatives, the author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ has demolished, to his own satisfaction, the last defence of those who maintain that the Memoirs of the Apostles are identical with our Gospels.

So, Neil goes Gold again

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:11 am Cassels in the second part of his Supernatural Religion pretty well nails the case for our canonical gospels not appearing on the scene until the mid-second century -- after Justin

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:42 pm**

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:24 pm
*. Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπʼ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν*, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια*, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς

* BUT the notes say

13. ἀπομνημονεύμασιν: See Introduction, xxxv.—ἃ … εὐαγγέλια: Suspected by some of being a gloss. But, as Otto observes, this would [also] involve a gloss in Dial. c. T. cc. 10. 100.a

I don't follow the footnote's comment. Justin speaks of "the Gospel", singular, in Dial Trypho 10 and 100, but he is not there saying that the Memoirs of the Apostles are that Gospel. Aristides, as just one other example, also speaks of "The Gospel", singular, in the same way Justin does -- but of course Aristides gives us no hint that he knows of a work "Memoirs of the Apostles".

So I can't see how a proposed gloss beside one instance of "Memoirs of the Apostles" means that we must presume a gloss in other places where the word "Gospel" is used but where it is not used to identify the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:05 pm**

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:42 pm
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:24 pm
*. Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπʼ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν*, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια*, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς

* BUT the notes say

13. ἀπομνημονεύμασιν: See Introduction, xxxv.—ἃ … εὐαγγέλια: Suspected by some of being a gloss. But, as Otto observes, this would [also] involve a gloss in Dial. c. T. cc. 10. 100.a

I don't follow the footnote's comment. Justin speaks of "the Gospel", singular, in Dial Trypho 10 and 100, but he is not there saying that the Memoirs of the Apostles are that Gospel. Aristides, as just one other example, also speaks of "The Gospel", singular, in the same way Justin does -- but of course Aristides gives us no hint that he knows of a work "Memoirs of the Apostles".

So I can't see how a proposed gloss beside one instance of "Memoirs of the Apostles" means that we must presume a gloss in other places where the word "Gospel" is used but where it is not used to identify the Memoirs of the Apostles.

I suspect " ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια " / 'called a gospel' in 1 Apol 66 being considered a gloss raises the prospect that Dial 10, with it's similar qualification, " τῷ λεγομέηῳ εὐαγγελίῳ " / 'the so-called gospel,' is also a gloss (afiak, λεγομέηῳ has been and still is problematic)

And, given Justin seems to consistently us the plural, apomnemoneumata (and εὐαγγέλια is plural), they may have considered the use of the singular in Dial 10 and 100 to be problematic.

(εὐηγγελίσατο in 1 Apol 33 could be more interpreted as a more general, 'preaching good news' (?) )

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:12 pm**

I have thought that the "precepts" in Justin's quote about the "Gospel":

I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them;

...refers to radical instructions of Jesus as "leave all and follow me" etc. "No one can keep them" is posssibly the origin of the Gospel episode of the young rich (allegorizing Israel).

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:28 pm**

No, that is not the origin. The origin is the necessity of world denunciation following from the anti-demiurgism of pre-Christian gnosis. The difficulty to keep them is some of the motivation behind subsequent euhemerization and Judaization.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

Re: The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO